GovernorAggie

I did not know that. This explains a lot.

I know. But so does HCTRA. One is expected to deal with the public. The other shrugs its shoulders at the public.

To your first point, pull back from the trees and look at the forest. My point about all of those cities complaining about their transit agencies was that those are cities with well-established rail-based transit systems, and honestly I pointed them out because I would think that even the biggest LRT opponents (or Metro opponents) in this town would point to those places and say, "these places got it right...Metro should be more like them." SO, the goal was to show that even transit systems that apparently comparatively "got it right" have their issues in their own towns. THAT was the point. And furthermore, how would you rebuild Metro--given the parameters set by agencies like FTA and the State even before you contemplate such a move? Secondly, thanks for calling what you perceived as my observation as valid; however I think you missed some of that point as well. My point there was (and still is) that transit HAS to be looked at from a different pair of glasses because a lot of its measures of "efficiency" are in some ways diametrically opposed to other infrastructure. Face this, Niche, LRT measurements and observations in Houston are only 3 years old now. I know typical Houston nature is to expect results even before the improvement is completed, but we don't know everything locally yet. It just hasn't been long enough. Sure traffic is an issue with it today, but the question is, without it would traffic have become is issue on its own by 2025? 2035? I know, I know Niche--address it then, right? Well, what about the cost? A $300 Million line in 2004 would cost well above that in 2025 in hard capital costs as well as soft costs like lane rents, salaries for construction workers, and bought time from utilities to move their infrastructure. This gets even higher in 2035. At least the thing was built while traffic impacts would be comparatively low to the future potentially. SH6 probably seemed like a good idea when it was built, but years later it's a beast. Grand Parkway is gonna get built when it does because it has to beat the traffic chronologically--and it'll be cheaper now than later (even at $4B). Why should LRT be different? Thirdly, you like HCTRA--but you like it for the reasons that you don't like Metro and TxDOT, no stupid, uninformed, loud, messy public citizens to deal with. This is a serious issue. An agency with eminent domain powers SHOULD have to deal with the public. Do you not think that TxDOT and Metro would be more efficient and better agencies if they had HCTRA's power and money source WITH eminent domain power? Of course they would. TxDOT would have tolled everything by now (they've been building toll roads since the 60s with I-30 in DFW being the first) if they weren't so "handcuffed" by the public. I remember reading an editorial last year that said in the early 80s Metro had money IN PLACE from Congress (the late Sen. Benson) to build heavy rail with SUBWAY through downtown, but again the "stupid" local public got in the way and turned that money down, calling it unnecessary (interestingly enough, people keep asking why Metro won't build subway). The day HCTRA has to deal with the public (as they should with, I say again, EMINENT DOMAIN POWER) is the day their efficiency goes down. Debates like ours keep what may be good projects from happening because we armchair-quarterback the thing to death. Architects and planners in this forum wouldn't dare try to tell economists what's right or wrong about economic theories or whatever. Maybe economists should consider the same about planners and architects. Oh that's right, the forum is a place for an exchange of ideas and viewpoints. But according to you, transferring that to the process of building public projects is not ideal and should be avoided or ignored all together (just ask HCTRA).

Thanks.

While I don't disagree with you in principle, I think that Bridgeland doesn't happen without the promise and assurance of Grand Parkway. Fry is just not a good alternative for the 65,000 that are supposed to live there. 290 is less of an issue when you have GP to get to you to 10 or 290. You have a choice. No Grand Parkway = No Bridgeland (or Cinco Ranch or any other "wedge"--meaning areas between the radial freeways--master planned community)

Maybe they do but what makes them unique? People in many cities complain about their transit agencies. If you go to SSP, you'll see people in Toronto (which I'm sure you'll agree is a viable city for transit) complaining about transit, people in Chicago have complained about CTA, people in Philadelphia actually borderline hate SEPTA. Folks in DC complain about WMATA. And on and on and on. Folks will complain about transit agencies because transit tends to be such a 'niche' industry--one that you can't use the same measures against that you use for regular infrastructure programs. For instance, transit is the only mode of throughput where being below capacity is a BAD thing. However, having extra room is a GOOD thing for freeways, water mains, power lines, etc. People complain about empty buses at 9pm at night but are glad to see an empty freeway at 9pm. If a transit agency says "hey, let's add to our system" and their vehicles aren't full ALL hours of the day, people respond with "you don't use up what you have, why add more", whereas people sitting in traffic on a freeway say "we need to add lanes to this freeway" even though the traffic eventually dies down leaving plenty of room for everyone in the existing facility. Transit is a different animal. We can't look at it with the same efficiency standards as other modes. After all, after $3B is spent of I-10, will we call it a waste of money because it's not packed end to end with vehicles at 1 am? Conversely, will we think was a good investment only after the thing fills up with traffic again? Likely not. At least folks in T.O. also voice displeasure in Ontario's transportation ministry, Chitown folks are upset with IDOT, and Philly folks have problems with PennDOT. In Houston, people make it out to seem like Metro is the only transportation body that is a problem while HCTRA and TxDOT are golden. It just shouldn't be that way. All agencies work within the paramenters they have. Here, TxDOT seems to be the Boss, and HCTRA seems to be quickly becoming its right-hand-man (according to Christof's blog). Of course the City people you mentioned aren't gonna complain about working with them as much as they do with Metro--because what's their alternative? Say no to TxDOT? No to HCTRA? They could say no to TxDOT but somehow they will pay for it adversely in the future (lack of funding requests being met for example), and HCTRA will do what they want because they can (no environmental process).

No prob, but all credit is due to Christof at CTC.

Interesting read. http://www.ctchouston.org/blogs/christof/2...-a-blank-check/ The one that stands out to me the most is the eastern extension of Westpark. It would be elevated, so it would rise about the homes on the south side of Westpark. Then again, that's probably what folks there would prefer over a train. This follows the news reported by Chron a few days ago of a bill passed by the Senate that would allow HCTRA to be TxDOT's implementer of tollways in the Houston area. It's in the same bill that put the 2-year moratorium on private tollways.

I don't totally disagree, but just because a home isn't required for ROW acquisition, it still doesn't mean that it's the best idea for a high-speed tollway to be a handful of feet from a person's back WINDOW, let alone back yard, as shown on the north side of Westpark heading toward Ft. Bend County. You just lowered that person's property values as well as their quality of life. Since the project is not federal but paid for by tolls, no mitigation (read: noise walls) is required. Speaking of that, Christof posted some interesting info on his blog about some propsed new tollways (or ability to constrcut new tollways). I'll start a new topic with his link. One of the proposed tollways is an extension of Westpark east to Kirby as an elevated facility. So the question is (IHB2) which is worse, LRT or Westpark Tollway. My cynical instincts tell me that Sunset Terrace might just prefer the tollway over LRT.

Niche, I'm shocked and disappointed in you. If I'd expect anyone on this forum to take and objective rather than subjective look at a matter, it'd be you. Now you admit to anti-METRO bias AND you rely on text written by Randal O'Toole, a known proud opponent of urban rail? I would have expected you to at least measure his data and the like against data put out from sources such as APTA, and then figure out the holes in their data. After all, the saying goes "Lies, Darn Lies, and Statistics" (I'd rather not use profanity--there's too many other words in the English language to use). I'm sure you know that saying by heart, as well as the author of it. Just pokin' a little fun atcha, man. Seriously though, you're obviously a detailed researcher; maybe you should use that same zeal to research all sides of an argument? What I will say though is that IMO economics is not the be-all end all, nor should it be. It's probably more economical for Weingarten (and in turn COH for increased tax revenue) to demolish River Oaks Shopping Center and build their new complex, but does that make it the right answer? And correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't an increase in the number of people admitted to hospitals and put on needless prescriptions improve the national economic numbers? (This is partly why it bothers me that TMC--while impressive to watch--has the "need" to continually build so many medical facilities). -------------------------------- On a separate note, HCTRA may be more "efficient" but aren't they even a problem since the original Beltway should have been paid for several times already by now? The segment from 290 to 59 alone collects over $300M a year IIRC. But then again, if they keep debt, they can keep charging tolls. They also don't have to go through a messy, expensive, public, and time consuming environmental process before building their projects. Thus, you hear very few complaints regarding their projects, even though they build their facilities right up against people's properties and homes.

On a side note, Toyota Center had a great lighting scheme last night, IMO. There were basically red floodlights that lit the bottow of the silver bottom to the buildings roof. Very subtle. Very classy.

I'm trying to understand why when people think lighting downtown, they instantly think of neon. I can think of several buildings in the CBD alone that can be lit nicely with softer light that accents their uniqueness: Bank of America--the gables should be lit from the base with a light complimentary of the building's color (similar to the lighting of the old Gulf building) Shell--one white light at the base of the antenna that lights the antenna Wells Fargo--fine as is as long as they can get the thing fixed 1000 Main--fine as is Continental--fine as is Chevron--fine as is Heritage Plaza--same type of lighting on Bank of America, but accenting the Mayan temple (not that tacky neon stuff it had before) Pennzoil--same type of lighting as Bank of America and Heritage Plaza (Gulf Bldg.) Reliant--fine as is Enterprise Plaza (1100 Louisiana?)--maybe fiber-optic outline of the stair-step side Fulbright--accent the distinguished southwest-facing roof design. Lastly, JPMorgan Chase--PLEASE take the bulbs down. Some of them are always blows anyway it seems. This one could also get the fiber-optic treatment--blue for Chase. The CBD basically has no spires or buildings with crowns, so that limits you. However, like scarface's letter says, during the day, it is a powerful skyline, but during the night you don't get quite the same impression. When I think of tasteful downtown night skylines, I think of Austin, Atlanta, LA, Minneapolis, Charlotte, Tampa, and maybe even Nashville. However, I also think that as a culture, those places give more thought to things that "don't matter" or "add to the bottom line" or "are unnecessary" than Houston has historically. For those who say "who cares about other cities, Houston, be yourself", I'd say that TMC is quite a vibrant night skyline as far as lighting goes. It may even be more vibrant than say, Uptown (sans Williams Tower).

And even if he was a consultant, he seems smart enough not to admit it!

No more TimeWarner would make me a happy guy. Anyone have Uverse?

I would think that there would be options for parts of town to get no treatment at all. Regarding Saturday's event (which I attended), it only applies to the areas directly around transit stations, and nowhere else UNLESS other areas wanted it to. I think that a great way for a form-based approach to work in Houston would be to make it that a self-designated (or city-designated like superneighborhoods) area like Old Sixth Ward decides what they want their area to look like, and then they proceed with the tools provided through exercise like these to decide their own path. On the other hand, Tanglewood could say, "we're fine as is" and not have anything at all if they don't want to. I like Super Neighborhood structure because they already have active, aware citizens and memberships--and their boundaries are set. A Super Neighborhood like #64 could, as a part of their regular meetings and workshops, bring up this issue and foster neighborhood communication on whether they want it or not. If they don't, then they do nothing. If they do, they get city staff (who they pay through tax dollars) instead of paying consultants like a TIRZ would do, to help them with workshops, etc. using tools and ideas that may come out of this urban corridor exercise to help them decide their own destinies. Kind of like deed restrictions on a Super Neighborhood level--but they wouldn't supercede existing deed restrictions or areas with Super Neighborhoods. Once the SN decides what they want, the people can vote on it. Also Niche, I think that you broad-brush too many planners. I don't know how many you know personally, but I will tell you that Houston's planners are some of the more realistic that I've ever seen. Almost too realistic compared to planners in other cities. With that in mind, Houston planner KNOW that zoning won't work here, and some are even glad that we don't have it. Planners in Houston know that the market rules the day here as well--but at the same time, they're the ones who know more than you and I if they've gotten applications for developers wanting to do development that's unlike your typical Hwy. 6 development. They know how often developer may not have bothered due to the variance issue. Wouldn't that be ironic that "free-market" Houston makes it tough for developers of a niche-market like urban/transit-oriented development to come here en masse--because of regulations? As far as electability, I would think that the codes are electable just like anything else, and since they aren't zoning ordinances, there's really no comp plan that has to come along with them. Speaking of, why do you call that tyranny of the majority? It seems to me that it would be more "tyranny of those who attend the workshops to determine these comp plans". Comp plans don't happen without a lot of public input, and then scrutiny before being approved by a local planning commission.

To answer your first question, yes, form-based can be applied to specific areas instead of just layering over a whole municipality. Even zoning is flexible enough to be applied to certain areas that want certain qualities. Davidson, NC (a small city mind you) went to a form-based approach for its downtown area, for example. With a form-based approach, Midtown, Uptown, Downtown, and Westchase are going to have different approaches than Third Ward, Fifth Ward, or Montrose--and they should because those are the people that actually live there! Washington Heights probably will not like 8-story condo buildings in its neighborhood, but maybe they would like more homes that have front porches instead of garages as the dominant feature of homes. Likewise, based upon Westchase's new plan, it's unlikely that the built form along Westheimer will begin to look more like Washington Ave. Form-based embraces the different forms in a city. It actually addresses the different forms within an area. In Midtown, for example, the form that Midtowners may want might have bigger, more intense structures (notice that I didn't say uses), wider sidewalks (with provisions for sidewalk cafes), and benches along Main Street, Travis, McGowen, and Elgin. However, along Caroline or Bagby, the preferred approach is shorter buildings, maybe skinnier sidewalks, and more on-street parking. Form based looks at the relationship of the public ROW to the private ROW. For your second question, it has nothing to do with health, safety, welfare, in my opinion. That's why it's more of an electable method, not one that is imposed upon property owners in an area by some arbitrary body.

I agree, they're pretty similar. Look forward to seeing what you can find regarding the property laws vs. zoning. What I do know is that Texas laws for zoning are kinda funky. If I remember correctly from planning law, it has to be congruent with a comprehensive plan. In other words, in Texas, zoning and a comp plan have to match, but the comp plan doesn't necessarily govern the zoning changes. Then again, my memory is a little foggy an I'd have to check my notes. This is very different from a state like Florida, where cities actually HAVE to have a comp plan according to state law. The difference is in the terms. Form-based are administered based upon how the proposed development may fit in a certain area. For example, we have a wide range of mixed uses in Houston, and with those mixed uses come mixed forms. A form-based code for an area that is clearly a neighbrohood or ped-oriented area would be focused on a building's relationship with the street. So if a 19-story condo tower wants to come into Midtown say around West Gray, all the form-based code would do is look at how the tower addresses the street. This could result in a tower design that has more windows at its base than say the Bank of America Center. It could even go as far as resulting in a tower that has its first 3-5 floors up to the sidewalk but then floors 6-19 are stepped back. The height is still there but maybe not as imposing on a pedestrian. Form-based cares less about a use as much as its fit into a particular area--not the whole city. This is a rather simple example but hopefully it makes sense. Zoning, however might look at the 19-story residential tower and say that it can't be on West Gray b/c it's a commercial area. Older zoning ordinances won't mix residential with commercial. That's why many cities are finding traditional zoning to be outdated and an impediment to infill development. Zoning mainly cares more about the use than about the form. Regarding the Supreme Court case in the 1920s, believe it or not, the US Chamber of Commerce was in favor of zoning, and the Supreme Court did something it rarely does--allowed the town of Euclid's attorney to re-present his case against Ambler (he apparently had some issues presenting the first go-around). It did indeed mandate it for health, safety, welfare, and MORALS at the time. Morals has since been dropped for many b/c it's subjective in a lot of circles. I think your example of the factories is another reason why many locales are wondering why zoning is needed in the first place. I don't know if anyone has ever contested the validity of a form-based code, but I can't see why one would try, nor could I predict what the Court's opinion would be. After all, who would've thought that a conservative-leaning court would give a decision like Kelo? Houston doesn't zone but it has accomplished all the things that a place where I used to live hopes to accomplish through zoning (multiple centers). Of course this is mainly due to markets but it's also due to government policies. For example, places like Fairfield can exist in Texas due to the abilities of the MUDs here. Other places can hold the development down in areas by delaying utility hookups. There are some steaks musicman and niche. I'm sure you're both ready to chop them up.

No I'm not sure that's what form-based zoning is, because I specifically said that it is NOT zoning. No one is dumb enough to recommend zoning in Houston--no one. You can't zone this place and around the country zoning is being looked at more and more as a problem instead of an answer. This is focused purely on development styles. I don't think form-based development codes or ordinances restrict or place limitations on development any more than our current ordinances--tree ordinance, parking ordinance, setback ordinance, replat processes, etc., etc., etc. You and other Houstonians are delusional if you think that this place has no development regulation already. You know it does but since they aren't under some umbrella called "zoning", I guess that makes it better, right? Sorry my analogy doesn't meet your level of detail. I did say it was kinda like the interchange. Musicman, in cities that do zone (which I am not advocating because regulating uses is kinda--there's that word again--archaic) you can indeed re-zone one property, it just has to be approved by the zoning commission--AFTER the proposed rezoning has been posted and notices sent to all neighbors within a certain distance of the subject property, giving them a chance to comment at the zoning commission meeting.

Tallest only for a little while longer...

I don't get how this would be much different than what we already have. People will complain if I have a development that they don't like anyway. After all, this isn't zoning, per se--so what should I care about what someone else has to say about my parcel? If they don't like it, buy it from me. I mean, it's not like there's some city agency that has the job of listening to anyone else but me for what I want to do with my property. The requirement is for 25' setback, but if I want it to be 35', I can make it 35. Why should it be harder for me to make it 15' if I want it to be 15'? Thanks to them, I don't have zoning to deal with and that's all that matters. If that were the case, maybe the city would be more active in the River Oaks Shopping Center issue. But it's not. Complaints are happening anyway, and that's not stopping the change. Besides, I think this would be more like a Midtown situation, take the Superblock for example. If Camden doesn't want to do 25' setbacks, they have to go through a process that is cumbersome at best and senseless at worst to get a variance. If they have a tool available that says, "you have the OPTION" if you choose this development type to be closer to the street, put your parking in the back, and make wider sidewalks--without getting separate variances for each of these things" then I think it's a fine thing to have. I look at it kinda like tolling a road. At BW8/249, the direct connector from BW8 east to 249N is tolled. It could've been built to be free, but HCTRA saw the opportunity to use that option to toll that ramp--the only one on that interchange and thus different from the others. Some complain that it's wrong to make a person pay for a smooth, fast, easy connection--but people still use it.

If it's what I think it is, I think that some people (including HBJ, which wouldn't be a first) have this confused. If it's form-based, that's all it is--form. It's not just building size, but also setbacks and parking placement. I think it's a good idea if its presented as kind of a "pre-packaged" option for a developer to choose if he wants to build a development that's different than the prevailing ordinances in place. Otherwise, he has to spend time going through time consuming and money-consuming variance requests and processes to reduce setbacks, parking, etc. I think its harmless to at least have the options.

Like Midtown

Agreed on Wells Fargo! It's my fave DT. It seemed to have some issues recently. The neon seems to be in several segments and many segments wouldn't light up so it looked discontinuous. Hopefully they fix is b/c that was the best lighting scheme of all the dominant west facing towers. I do like Reliant, Continental, and Chevron, though. Too bad more isn't done with Heritage Plaza. I'm thinking rooftop spotlights to highlight the temple-crown of the building. Same idea for Pennzoil. I don't know what I'd do with JPMC.

I think I'll call it, "the Frankenstein Interchange" mwahahahahaha!!!!

Maybe that was the reason for the "notice of variance request" sign I saw along Memorial on Sunday??